CHUKHU TAJO,ITANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 41/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the Bench that the orders of Ld. CIT (A) as well as Ld. AO were ex-parte. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s.250 of the Act was without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and as such the order is bereft of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. It specifically noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it failed to state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders from the National Faceless Appeal Centre for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, contending that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee further disputed the AO's jurisdiction, alleged lack of mandatory notice under Section 148, and challenged additions made without considering facts or allowing exemption under Section 10(26).

What were the issues?

Whether assessment orders passed ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard are valid, and whether the CIT(A)'s order complied with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148,Section 10(26),Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GUWAHATI’ BENCH, GUWAHATI’

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JM

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Agarwala, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Hearing: 08.07.2025Pronounced: 28.07.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 18.11.2024, 03.12.2024, 02.12.2024, 13.11.2024, 20.11.2024, 19.11.2024 for the AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18.

2.

The facts and circumstances are similar in all the appeals in to 43/GHY/2025 and hence, we will take the for A.Y. 2016-17 as lead case and will decide the issue. The grounds raised in ITA No. 37/GHY/2025 is as under: -

“1. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the assessing officer determining total income of? 62,92,399 without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.

5.

We after hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that impugned order passed by NeAC was upheld by NFAC without looking into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine by not considering the reply uploaded by the assessee on the portal. In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates the ld. CIT(A) to state the point in determination, his decision and reasons in support of his conclusion. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) would indicate that it is not in consonance with mandate given in the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not made any analysis of facts available on record, including the

6.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →